That's fine, but how about some answers

Page Tools

Kim Beazley was (mostly) admirably succinct after yesterday's
unfettered walk back into the leadership. And he said all the right
things about consulting widely. But on his natural ground of
foreign affairs, he opened more questions than he answered when he
talked about Iraq.

Known for his commitment to the US alliance, Beazley was trying
to strike a note of independence but avoid the sort of definitive
get-Australian-troops-out-quickly line that got Mark Latham into
trouble. The result was more sophisticated than Mark Latham's
approach, but less than satisfactory.

Beazley was strong on what we should be telling the Americans,
but vague on how they should implement such advice.

While declaring America must not become involved in a
long-running civil war in Iraq, he did not have much to offer about
a clear exit strategy. That was up to the Americans, he said. Well,
obviously.

And he would not say precisely what should be done with
Australia's troops in Iraq, though those protecting diplomats would
need to stay.

He just lectured about the Iraq debate needing to be more
complicated. But he did promise that he would have more to say
about that complex debate, and he would be wise to quickly fill the
vacuum he has left.

Beazley's performance was mostly about image and message. He
wanted to signal that he is decisive, has plenty of ticker, and
never gives up. The latter points are obviously right, if his
record of reaching out for the leadership repeatedly is any
criterion. The caucus and the public will be suspending judgement
on the first point.

He has told the party to stop bickering, and has a reasonable
prospect of getting unity because there seems little chance of an
alternative leader gaining support before an election.

He has also promised to sharpen Labor's differences with the
Government. But "sharpness" is not of itself the answer to people's
reluctance to embrace Labor it's getting policies that are not just
different but resonate with voters.